1. Title, director and release year? Food Inc, Robert Kenner, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film is all about uncovering the veil behind our food. Walking through the grocery store all we see are these perfectly packaged, boneless, skinless cuts of meat. Consumer's aren't entirely blind, we know there was a slaughter house somewhere along the line from farm to grocercy store. Yet this film's goal is to uncover more than just animal cruelty but rather to uncover the corporate and government interactions jeopardizing our health through this extensively unregulated system. The film is much more than a PETA cry to help but rather it is sure to include the corporate exploitation of farmers, and their influence over stalling the legislation needed to protect these farmers and thus everyday consumers.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? From the Monsanto Seeds court case we understand the power corporate organizations have over the food industry. Farmers receive no protection and are subject to follow by corporate rules and legislation. Patent laws, as we understood from The Corporation film as well, offer clear protection for Monsanto to sue and ultimately run down to the ground any farmer not purchasing their seed. It is a huge anti-trust monopolistic scheme that's just appallingly legal.
Kevin's Law.Another example of the lack of regulation can be seen through the story of a young boy Kevin and his mother's fight for future protection. Kevin was murdered by a bacteria in a hamburger his parents bought him on a family vacation. It is a crime that meat manufacturers, so absorbed with production speed and efficiency have killed children and consumers yet we still see no additional laws for regulation. It should only take one death, one unnecessary death for the system to require a huge audit and package of new legislation and requirement. Kevin's mother is fighting for this protection, not for justice for her son, but rather she's acting in a preventative manner for the future.
The film also discusses ecological disturbances our food industry has caused. Cows are fed corn because corn is easy to grown and relatively easy to transport. When in fact this severe alternation from a cow's natural diet has led to increasing cow flatulance, releasing methane into the atmosphere, contributing to green house gas emissions. The food industry has also contributed to a number of behavioral changes in how we purchase and consume food. The efficiencies accomplished by food producers and manufacturers has led to cheaper food options. Certain meats used to typically be for special occasions but now that these cuts are available at a lower price we are starting to consumer more cheaper meats. Rather than more expensive meats less frequently. One of the statements I just loved from the environmentalist farmer is how people are unwilling to pay $3 for a dozen local, free range eggs while they are sipping on a 75 cent can of soda.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? Chicken. Chicken is the most abused and ubiquitous term for meat in the American society. Chicken nuggets, chicken sandwiches, chicken pasta, chicken and rice, we all always eat chicken. I also feel that because it is a bird with scaley legs and feathers and not a warm fuzzy lamb, many people don't really care much of their treatment. A chicken even lacks the cute factor of a cow, believe it or not. The scenes of that female farmer's chicken coups with all the chickens piled on top of one another was just heartbreaking. Most of the birds can't even walk because their bodies are engineered to be have larger breasts then their legs can support, since we like white meat. This farmer was evidently just so fed up with the system she participates in. Even more illuminating was that her chicken coups are perhaps the most humane types, since they allow open air circulation and sunlight to enter the hut. I cannot even imagine how the chickens appear in the more popular and recommended by chicken processors, completely dark and enclosed huts. The chicken collectors come to empty out the huts kicking and throwing chickens into cages. The next morning the female farmers looks as though she's cleaning the remains of a holocaust collecting the dead chickens from the ground. Scenes like this juxtaposed with the perfectly clean, clear cellophane wrapping over the pristine white polystyrene container containing a beautifully cut piece of meat have more than impacted me, it has changed the way I eat. I always knew the dark side to animal slaughter and treatment from the food industry, yet now that I have subjected myself to real imagery behind the scenes i no longer see that pretty piece of meat. I can't eat chicken anymore.
Another perfecting compelling segment of the film was during the interviews with the sustainable and environmentalist farmer. He so perfectly understands his role as farmer and caretaker of the animals. He believe that while caring for the animals, providing them with the right life and happiness for the animal to enjoy, the animal will provide for us. He so articulately explains the way we view animals as objects, dollar signs, hamburgers is entirely unsustainable and demeans what we as human are naturally capable of-- to for care and raise our own food. His basic point is there is no more appreciation everything has become a commodity. Once scene difficult to watch but powerful in its message was when he and his 3 workers were slaughtering and preparing their chickens. His procedure out in the open air, open sunshine, human operated is found unsanitary by the FDA. This was just an incredible realization since through Kevin's story we understand how factories, highly automated and enclosed environments built for fast efficiencies with no attention for error are polluted with contaminants where just one bacteria can infest thousands of different products eaten by hundreds of thousands of different people.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Originally, I was not very compelled by the Stonyfield Farm yogurt story. While I agree it is a great incentive for a company to "go organic" and create more sustainable packaging and advocate a greener lifestyle for consumers I can't help but mock the hypocrisy of going green at Walmart. In one scene the Walmart store manager shows the Stonyfield CEO the yogurt's product placement within the store featuring the ORGANIC tags sticking out from the shelves. This is exactly the fault of the mainstream green movement. Consumers shopping at Walmart believe they are contributing to sustainability when in fact maybe not purchasing the tiny little sustainable yogurt cups and rather buying the larger container is in much better interest to the environment. Not to mention the hundreds of other low priced products at Walmart consistently contributing to a global economic shutdown, that Walmart shoppers purchase and blindly contribute to. Yet after my initial criticisms, I understand how change needs to happen starting somewhere. People aren't going to all of a sudden stop shopping at Walmart or stop buying single serve yogurt cups. While the CEO of Stonyfield mentioned he is an environmentalist and an activist he appreciates the volume Walmart is able to provide his company. He believes that through increasing the volume and accessibility of his product he increases the more positive impact his product has on the environment versus other products. It is an important lesson to understand that while trying to incur some kind of change, will require a great compromise. Refusing to sell at Walmart because of what you believe in is a noble stance yet the bottom line question is how did we affect the environment this year? And when that evaluation comes around the world does not know whether or not you sold those cups at Walmart, but it does know that this year there was more biodegradable yogurt cups than non-biodegradable. I think it's a very important lesson to understand that sometimes activists need to be a little less stubborn and understand the best interests of what they are fighting for.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? From the film I gained a great understanding of how corn is literally in everything. It is used for everything, transported hundreds of miles and consumed a million times over without most people even realizing it. From this ridiculous application of corn I wanted to look more deeply into corn as a sustainable energy option. Which i did in my matrix1 presentation.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? From my own example i do think the film is likely to change the way people view their food. The film is definitely not for the faint of heart but it should be viewed by anybody who eats meat from the grocery store (just about everyone).
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The end of the film offers a range of small little interventions anyone may start to implement. Such as just looking at the ingredients on the back of their foods. Or shopping from a local grocer or farmer's market every once in a while. I particularly like that the film never suggests that going vegetarian as a way to solve the problem.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? While it made of been out of the scope for the film I think it could have also covered more about the fruit and vegetable industries. This may have resulted in a four hour film. Yet i think since there was so much focus on chicken and meat, the film took on a sort of vegetarian perspective rather than just a critique on the food industry. Consequently, viewers may think by going vegetarian they are avoiding these contamination issues while in fact the same genetic modification, manufacturing and processing occur in the fruit and vegetable industries.
1. Title, director and release year?
Food Inc, Robert Kenner, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film is all about uncovering the veil behind our food. Walking through the grocery store all we see are these perfectly packaged, boneless, skinless cuts of meat. Consumer's aren't entirely blind, we know there was a slaughter house somewhere along the line from farm to grocercy store. Yet this film's goal is to uncover more than just animal cruelty but rather to uncover the corporate and government interactions jeopardizing our health through this extensively unregulated system. The film is much more than a PETA cry to help but rather it is sure to include the corporate exploitation of farmers, and their influence over stalling the legislation needed to protect these farmers and thus everyday consumers.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
From the Monsanto Seeds court case we understand the power corporate organizations have over the food industry. Farmers receive no protection and are subject to follow by corporate rules and legislation. Patent laws, as we understood from The Corporation film as well, offer clear protection for Monsanto to sue and ultimately run down to the ground any farmer not purchasing their seed. It is a huge anti-trust monopolistic scheme that's just appallingly legal.
Kevin's Law. Another example of the lack of regulation can be seen through the story of a young boy Kevin and his mother's fight for future protection. Kevin was murdered by a bacteria in a hamburger his parents bought him on a family vacation. It is a crime that meat manufacturers, so absorbed with production speed and efficiency have killed children and consumers yet we still see no additional laws for regulation. It should only take one death, one unnecessary death for the system to require a huge audit and package of new legislation and requirement. Kevin's mother is fighting for this protection, not for justice for her son, but rather she's acting in a preventative manner for the future.
The film also discusses ecological disturbances our food industry has caused. Cows are fed corn because corn is easy to grown and relatively easy to transport. When in fact this severe alternation from a cow's natural diet has led to increasing cow flatulance, releasing methane into the atmosphere, contributing to green house gas emissions.
The food industry has also contributed to a number of behavioral changes in how we purchase and consume food. The efficiencies accomplished by food producers and manufacturers has led to cheaper food options. Certain meats used to typically be for special occasions but now that these cuts are available at a lower price we are starting to consumer more cheaper meats. Rather than more expensive meats less frequently. One of the statements I just loved from the environmentalist farmer is how people are unwilling to pay $3 for a dozen local, free range eggs while they are sipping on a 75 cent can of soda.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Chicken. Chicken is the most abused and ubiquitous term for meat in the American society. Chicken nuggets, chicken sandwiches, chicken pasta, chicken and rice, we all always eat chicken. I also feel that because it is a bird with scaley legs and feathers and not a warm fuzzy lamb, many people don't really care much of their treatment. A chicken even lacks the cute factor of a cow, believe it or not. The scenes of that female farmer's chicken coups with all the chickens piled on top of one another was just heartbreaking. Most of the birds can't even walk because their bodies are engineered to be have larger breasts then their legs can support, since we like white meat. This farmer was evidently just so fed up with the system she participates in. Even more illuminating was that her chicken coups are perhaps the most humane types, since they allow open air circulation and sunlight to enter the hut. I cannot even imagine how the chickens appear in the more popular and recommended by chicken processors, completely dark and enclosed huts. The chicken collectors come to empty out the huts kicking and throwing chickens into cages. The next morning the female farmers looks as though she's cleaning the remains of a holocaust collecting the dead chickens from the ground. Scenes like this juxtaposed with the perfectly clean, clear cellophane wrapping over the pristine white polystyrene container containing a beautifully cut piece of meat have more than impacted me, it has changed the way I eat. I always knew the dark side to animal slaughter and treatment from the food industry, yet now that I have subjected myself to real imagery behind the scenes i no longer see that pretty piece of meat. I can't eat chicken anymore.
Another perfecting compelling segment of the film was during the interviews with the sustainable and environmentalist farmer. He so perfectly understands his role as farmer and caretaker of the animals. He believe that while caring for the animals, providing them with the right life and happiness for the animal to enjoy, the animal will provide for us. He so articulately explains the way we view animals as objects, dollar signs, hamburgers is entirely unsustainable and demeans what we as human are naturally capable of-- to for care and raise our own food. His basic point is there is no more appreciation everything has become a commodity. Once scene difficult to watch but powerful in its message was when he and his 3 workers were slaughtering and preparing their chickens. His procedure out in the open air, open sunshine, human operated is found unsanitary by the FDA. This was just an incredible realization since through Kevin's story we understand how factories, highly automated and enclosed environments built for fast efficiencies with no attention for error are polluted with contaminants where just one bacteria can infest thousands of different products eaten by hundreds of thousands of different people.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Originally, I was not very compelled by the Stonyfield Farm yogurt story. While I agree it is a great incentive for a company to "go organic" and create more sustainable packaging and advocate a greener lifestyle for consumers I can't help but mock the hypocrisy of going green at Walmart. In one scene the Walmart store manager shows the Stonyfield CEO the yogurt's product placement within the store featuring the ORGANIC tags sticking out from the shelves. This is exactly the fault of the mainstream green movement. Consumers shopping at Walmart believe they are contributing to sustainability when in fact maybe not purchasing the tiny little sustainable yogurt cups and rather buying the larger container is in much better interest to the environment. Not to mention the hundreds of other low priced products at Walmart consistently contributing to a global economic shutdown, that Walmart shoppers purchase and blindly contribute to. Yet after my initial criticisms, I understand how change needs to happen starting somewhere. People aren't going to all of a sudden stop shopping at Walmart or stop buying single serve yogurt cups. While the CEO of Stonyfield mentioned he is an environmentalist and an activist he appreciates the volume Walmart is able to provide his company. He believes that through increasing the volume and accessibility of his product he increases the more positive impact his product has on the environment versus other products. It is an important lesson to understand that while trying to incur some kind of change, will require a great compromise. Refusing to sell at Walmart because of what you believe in is a noble stance yet the bottom line question is how did we affect the environment this year? And when that evaluation comes around the world does not know whether or not you sold those cups at Walmart, but it does know that this year there was more biodegradable yogurt cups than non-biodegradable. I think it's a very important lesson to understand that sometimes activists need to be a little less stubborn and understand the best interests of what they are fighting for.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
From the film I gained a great understanding of how corn is literally in everything. It is used for everything, transported hundreds of miles and consumed a million times over without most people even realizing it. From this ridiculous application of corn I wanted to look more deeply into corn as a sustainable energy option. Which i did in my matrix1 presentation.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
From my own example i do think the film is likely to change the way people view their food. The film is definitely not for the faint of heart but it should be viewed by anybody who eats meat from the grocery store (just about everyone).
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The end of the film offers a range of small little interventions anyone may start to implement. Such as just looking at the ingredients on the back of their foods. Or shopping from a local grocer or farmer's market every once in a while. I particularly like that the film never suggests that going vegetarian as a way to solve the problem.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
While it made of been out of the scope for the film I think it could have also covered more about the fruit and vegetable industries. This may have resulted in a four hour film. Yet i think since there was so much focus on chicken and meat, the film took on a sort of vegetarian perspective rather than just a critique on the food industry. Consequently, viewers may think by going vegetarian they are avoiding these contamination issues while in fact the same genetic modification, manufacturing and processing occur in the fruit and vegetable industries.